In a death penalty case, would any judge ignore new evidence in the form of multiple eyewitnesses' testimony which, if true, would prove definitively that the person scheduled for execution did not commit the crime, on the basis that the new evidence was not presented three (3) days earlier? One would hope not. That certainly would not be just.

Yet, that is essentially what has occured in the Terri Shiavo case. Judge George Greer was presented multiple affidavits by several eyewitnesses that heard, with their own ears, and saw with their own eyes, Terri Schiavo speaking, responding to an attorney's question, "Do you want to live", with "I WA.....".

Now, the very legal predicate being used to put Ms. Schiavo to death is that she is in a permanent vegetative state (PVS). Now, several neurologists and the eyewitnesses have testified under oath, under penalty of perjury and imprisonment, that Ms. Schiavo is likely NOT in a PVS.

His imperial highness, Judge Greer, ruled that this new evidence is worthless and should be disregarded, because it wasn't brought to his attention three (3) days earlier, at another hearing. In other words, Judge Greer doesn't care whether Ms. Schiavo is conscious or not, whether she is suffering or not, whether the basis to put her to death exists or not. This is an "I see nothing, I hear nothing" approach.

It is abhorrent and abominable. And he has now been affirmed by the Florida appellate courts on the basis that they wish to see nothing and hear nothing, either. Legal procedural technicalites being used to starve and dehydrate a conscious disabled citizen to death.

This is not a "justice" system. It is some other kind of system.

I would argue that fundamental due process under the 14th Amendment to the United States Consitution requires, and justice demands, that a person not be put to death on the basis of an old PVS diagnosis from some doctors, on the supposed basis of fulfilling the supposed wishes of a person on the predicate of an accurate PVS diagnosis, based upon old tests, where other competent doctors disagree and believe the person is not in a PVS and/or sworn testimony shows to the contrary.

This is murder, plain and simple. Cold-blooded murder in the Biblical or real-world sense, if not in the "legal" sense.

I believe that Ms. Schiavo is being deprived of her life without due process, and her 14th Amendment rights have been violated. That no court has agreed speaks volumes about the quality of the judges who sit on them.

This is a human tragedy, and we must fix this system to that other innocent helpless people are not put to death under similar circusmstances in the future. True justice demands it.

In a death penalty case, would any judge ignore new evidence in the form of multiple eyewitnesses' testimony which, if true, would prove definitively that the person scheduled for execution did not commit the crime, on the basis that the new evidence was not presented three (3) days earlier? One would hope not. That certainly would not be just.

Happens all the time, at least in Texas.

You are not guaranteed 'justice' or the correct decision, only a procedurally fair trial. Appeals of murder cases are turned down because the new evidence is not timely and actual innocence is not necessarily a reason for a stay of execution of a new trial.

I can see why there has to be some finality in a criminal case (though I would hope a court would consider new DNA evidence, or a confession by another person), but this situation is tantamount to burying a person alive.

I can see why there has to be some finality in a criminal case (though I would hope a court would consider new DNA evidence, or a confession by another person), but this situation is tantamount to burying a person alive.

This is, at bottom, a type of custody case. If there were no limit on appeals and 'new evidence' every custody case would stay active until the ward was grown or dead. No one would ever give up and no decision would be final.

FYI, I do support written living wills and allowing terminally ill people to decide when to cease treatment.

I am against "active euthanaisa" however, and believe that this is such a case, under the guise of fulfilling her wishes.

Active Euthenasia? Explain to me why my father had to spend his last days dieing just like Terrri because it would be 'wrong' to provide him or his caregivers a massive dose of morphine to end it mercifully?

Judge Greer made dubious and unethical judgments by being biased to one side, and has financial and other relationships that caused conflict of interests. Greer had, and still has, an obligation to recuse himself from the Schiavo case.

17
posted on 03/27/2005 9:10:27 AM PST
by demlosers
(Soylent Green is made in Florida)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.